Showering a loved one with gifts is nothing out of the ordinary, but what happens with those presents if the relationship fails to stand the test of time? According to an etiquette expert, the answer is clear-cut.

The court system, however, might beg to differ, as revealed by the predicament nurse Heather Douglass, from London, found herself in after her firefighter ex, Craig Titchener, took her to court over £40,000 he had previously gifted her from a £200,000 scratch card win.

Mr Titchener, a Heathrow Airport firefighter, scooped his big win on a Winter Wonderlines scratchcard in 2019. He told a judge he had hoped to use the cash to help him buy a house for himself and his children.

To that end, he handed Ms Douglass – his girlfriend at the time – around £40,000 so that she could use her 'financial savvy' to invest it for him. He also transferred £5,000 to her, but the court ruled it was a gift.

The nurse contested the claim, alleging that he spoiled her with the larger cash sum to 'get back into her good books' when they quarrelled during their 'volatile' 11-month relationship.

The case culminated in Douglass storming out of virtual court, after District Judge Charlotte Hart ruled that it had been meant as an investment – and ordered her to pay it back to her former lover earlier this week.

According to 'Queen of Etiquette' Laura Windsor, one should scarcely expect a gift back. She told the Daily Mail: 'A gift is a gift. It comes without an expiry date or a repayment clause.

'If you think otherwise, may I suggest you steer clear of relationships, never buy someone a gift, or better still, warn them beforehand that if you do break up, you expect the cash back on every gift you gave. See how that pans out for you.

Should you return gifts at the end of a relationship? Etiquette expert Laura Windsor says it's a firm no (stock image)

'You give a gift as an expression of love, appreciation, affection, or generosity. If, when the relationship ends, you expect to be reimbursed for it, then it was never truly a gift in the first place.'

Windsor extends her beliefs to most, if not all, types of gifts, including large sums of cash: 'Demanding the money back completely undermines the very meaning of giving. There should be no expectation of repayment.'

She added, however, that tolerance is vital to the rules of etiquette. 'Etiquette is about understanding one another's motives. So we have to be tolerant, but it will reinforce the idea that breaking up was a very good idea!

'If your partner gave you a substantial sum of money specifically to help you through financial difficulties, and later finds themselves in need of money, it would be a gracious gesture to repay some or all of it.'

But when it comes to expensive gifts, her thought process is similar: 'Have gifts now come with a price tag attached to the relationship? A gift is a gift, regardless of the price tag.'

But in the interest of maintaining peace, she advised: 'If you were given an expensive gift, then you could always sell the gift and return the money or just return the gift and let them deal with the rest.'

Sentimental gifts in particular, however, should not be returned, according to Windsor. 'If anything, personalisation reinforces the sentiment behind the gift.

'Asking for it back suggests the sentiment was conditional all along. How can you live your life like this or expect your partner to go along with that. So tell your partner this at the beginning of the relationship and save them from unnecessary grief.'

Heather Douglass (pictured last year) has been told she must pay back £40,000 to an ex-boyfriend who had given her the cash to invest

Firefighter Craig Titchener (pictured last year) won £200,000 on a Winter Wonderlines scratchcard

Everyday gifts, meanwhile, including flowers, chocolates or small treats, are another definite no-no.

Windsor said: 'Why should someone be expected to return moments of kindness? It's almost as though you're saying, "I want the happiness I gave you back."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the same is said of practical gifts. 'They were freely given,' she said, adding, 'Demanding them back after a breakup rather misses the point of giving in the first place.'

She added a piece of advice though: 'With household items or the like, for example, if they really want the coffee machine back, then give them the item itself rather than a cash equivalent.'

The expert concluded: 'A genuine gift is given freely; it is not on loan until the romance expires.'

It comes after Ms Douglass told the earlier civil trial that Mr Titchener had 'lovebombed' her, and told him in court: 'You sent me money because you were desperate to be in a relationship with me.'

The firefighter denied this, firing back: 'Why would I have transferred half of my life savings just to be in a relationship with you?'

She replied: 'You want women to be with you and you struggle when you're on your own. You're very controlling and this was a relationship wholly based on control. You believe that you can buy people.'

The defendant, who has ADHD, told the judge she had spent much of the money with her ex's agreement, splurging on a holiday in Thailand for them both and home improvements.

'Part of my diagnosis is that I have an addiction to over-spending,' she said.

District Judge Hart found in favour of Mr Titchener last year – noting there was 'very little evidence' of a controlling relationship, as his ex had asserted.

The contested case returned to court again last week for a hearing via a remote video link, where Judge Hart, after hearing further evidence, struck out claims that some of the £40,000 had been spent with the firefighter's consent.

The court was told that Ms Douglass had been ordered to file a witness statement together with her bank statements in order to show when and where the money was spent – but that she had failed to produce these, breaching a court order.

Speaking at the remote hearing, Mr Titchener argued that he should get the £40,000 back in full because she had failed to submit full evidence of her finances.

Ms Douglass claimed she had changed her email address and that her bank had refused to provide statements. This did not persuade the judge.

'The failure to produce the bank statements as directed is a serious and significant breach of the court order,' Judge Hart said.

'The order was in terms that unless the bank statements were exhibited, the claimant was entitled to enter judgment in the sum of £40,000,' she added.

'I am satisfied that there is no good reason for the breach.'

As she was told the case was not ending in her favour and that she would have to pay her ex £40,000, Ms Douglass stormed out of the virtual hearing.

Turning off the video link, she told the judge: 'I am going to leave because I don't agree with any of this. Goodbye.'